Was a stun gun used in the crime or not

[angelnsb]

Hello all!

I had to comment here...Of course

I am 100% convinced that the marks are all from Patsy's rings. I think she grabbed JBR and held her close to her own body for quite some time. I think she squeezed the lifeless child a bit too hard and produced the marks.

Here is my link:

http://www.geocities.com/wolfchick942003/photopage.html

Check it out if you don't know my theory already.

If we find the rings, we find the "weapon." I have no doubts.

Wow, looks pretty correct too me. That's something to consider. It makes sense.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

I did not mean to not give you credit WolfmarsGirl for you theory,but i could not remember who proposed the ring theory.I beleive you have something their.

Hi Fulton...Oops. I just breezed through this thread. I didn't even know you mentioned this theory specifically. I just flew right past your comments about the rings...I will have to go back and re-read.

Thanks for the credit. You are very kind. But, certainly no credit is due to me. I am sorry if I gave you that impression...Just me sticking my cyber-foot in my big ol' cyber-mouth again :banghead:

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

... I didn't even know you mentioned this theory specifically. I just flew right past your comments about the rings...

Ok, so I am an airhead, lol...You mentioned the rings in the post right above me...As my six-year-old would tell me, "DUH Mommy!!"

 

[BlueCrab]

WolfmarsGirl,

Your ring theory is interesting, but I don't think it is practical because of the small numbers of marks on JonBenet and their locations. It seems that if Patsy would have held JonBenet that tight, and for such a long time as to make indentations on JonBenet's skin, there would have been marks in more than just three places -- on the face, on the back, and on the lower leg near the ankle. There would have been a dozen or more marks, especially on the arms and torso, because each time she would shift JonBenet's body while holding her, even if just one inch, another indentation would occur.

Almost every forensic pathologist who has studied the autopsy report and the photos of the marks agree they are consistent with stun gun injuries. That includes the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, the only pathologist who examined the injuries in person.

I'll go with the experts on this one. JonBenet was stungunned.

JMO

 

[aRnd2it]

Almost every forensic pathologist who has studied the autopsy report and the photos of the marks agree they are consistent with stun gun injuries. That includes the coroner, Dr. John Meyer, the only pathologist who examined the injuries in person.

Come on BlueCrab, you're twisting Meyer's words. He said "anything is possible", but when asked specifically he stated he could not comment on an open case.

"Chief Beckner said he was already familiar with Smit's theory that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. "I can say, we have evidence to the contrary." He also said he was disturbed that Smit decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case. "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence," Beckner said.

Boulder County Coroner John Meyer declined to comment"

 

[BlueCrab]

Come on BlueCrab, you're twisting Meyer's words. He said "anything is possible", but when asked specifically he stated he could not comment on an open case.

"Chief Beckner said he was already familiar with Smit's theory that a stun gun was used on JonBenet. "I can say, we have evidence to the contrary." He also said he was disturbed that Smit decided to talk about evidence in the unsolved case. "He's willing to go out and talk about his theory, but in so doing, he ignores a lot of other evidence," Beckner said.

Boulder County Coroner John Meyer declined to comment"

Rndt2,

Beckner has no evidence to the contrary about a stun gun being used on JonBenet or the info would have been leaked by now. Everything else has been leaked. The Boulder cops painted themselves into the PDI corner early on and can't get themselves out without losing face -- so they will never admit that a stun gun was used on JonBenet.

The evidence of a stun gun being used is overwhelming. The marks aren't rumors -- they are hard items of evidence right there to see and to measure and to study. The experts say the marks are consistent with stun gun injuries. I believe them.

JMO

 

[aRnd2it]

Beckner has no evidence to the contrary about a stun gun being used on JonBenet or the info would have been leaked by now. Everything else has been leaked.

I completely disagree with you on this one BlueCrab. There is a TON of evidence that has not been leaked. Consider the "DNA-X" that nobody really knows about except what lettle came out in Beckner's deposition.

Beckner says he has evidence that proves a stun gun wasn't used and he certainly isn't going to show his hand until he can use it in a courtroom against the Ramseys.

 

[BlueCrab]

Beckner says he has evidence that proves a stun gun wasn't used and he certainly isn't going to show his hand until he can use it in a courtroom against the Ramseys.

Rndt2,

How can Beckner prove a negative? We all have the same photos and autopsy report to study. The evidence is right there on JonBenet's body which proves the marks were likely from a stun gun, but Beckner can't prove they WEREN'T from a stun gun. (Maybe Beckner was able to capture Toth's trained mosquitos who have confessed to leaving patterned bites that mimic stun gun injuries.)

JMO

 

[Camper]

has continued for eight (8) years on the 'stun gun' issue.

BlueCrab or anyone help me out here with my dim memory.

1. Did 'We' decide that an incomplete autopsy was done in a ?rush? to appease Ramseys in their quest to do a proper burial in GA?

2. When was it that 'we/they' decided that to make a definite determination that a 'stun gun was or was not used' would 'require' exhumation of JonBenet's body?

3. Well another double duh, with dust on it, Ramseys NEVER
authorized exhumation, and most likely 'will never' authorize exhumation.

4. Would/could that authorization by 'anyone' could or would be given, and proof be shown that a '?stun gun?' was ever used - how far would that make our discussions of a '?stun gun?' any closer to finding 'the real killer'.


Surely BPD would have moved heaven and earth to determine WHO HAD PURCHASED A STUN GUN, the WHO being 'a Ramsey'.

Finding anyone close to the Ramsey family who might have purchased a '?stun gun?' would be like looking for a pony in a pile of hay.

Has anyone wondered IF IF IF stun gun was purchased by the Ramsey Corporation for John Ramseys useage importante as executive and illustrious corporate head. Bet his disappearing secretary would have known. Surely she was asked, hmmm, betcha she was not asked. Having been a corporate secretary for a period in my life, I knew everything about my boss. IT is a very close relationship!

Reason I say that is it appears that the marks on JonBenets body were not given importance by the medical examiner, or do I err on that point? Can someone direct me to the chapter and verse on that one.



---------------------------------------
Excuse my creative punctuation, I do think it makes things more clear to the average reader.



.

 

[aRnd2it]

How can Beckner prove a negative? We all have the same photos and autopsy report to study. The evidence is right there on JonBenet's body which proves the marks were likely from a stun gun, but Beckner can't prove they WEREN'T from a stun gun.

Wrong BlueCrab.
Beckner most certainly CAN prove it wasn't a stun gun just by knowing exactly what it was that DID cause the marks on her back.
There may also be forensic evidence on her shirt that proves it wasn't a stun gun. Stun guns don't cause people to bleed, so if the ABRASIONS on her back left any blood on the inside of her shirt it proves it was NOT a stun gun.

The stun gun was never anything more than the wet dream of a delusional old man.

 

[Camper]

Check out this link,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/01/48hours/main523884.shtml

Lou Smit would be 69 years old now, three years younger than myself. I would hardly consider someone of that age, doing the work that he has done for 30 years delusional. I suspect our dear poster Mr. 2it was probably chewing on a pacifier about 30 years ago. That was not an insult, just an observation. An observation with some substance, it has been my experience that folks who debase older folks are typically much much younger.

Folks can be delusional at any age.

The old saw that the killer often returns to the scene of the crime was found on Smits bio preceding the link I posted.

I have long thought, (in the interest of trying to ?believe? that the Ramseys had nothing to do with JonBenets death) that the Susanna Chase murder in Boulder almost to the exact date of JBR's death, one YEAR later to have a connection.

ALL of the BPD it would seem, Lou Smit, and Henry Lee thought NO, no, no, no connection. Henry Lee actually came to Boulder under direction of BPD (if I remember correctly) to investigate Susanna's murder. Susanna looked very much like JBR, only she was older and student at CU. Strangely she lived rather close during some of her college time in a dorm close to some of JAR's 'close' friends.

Take that little hmmm, and run with it.

Unidentified semen found with Susanna, it was not her boyfriends.

Edited to add: Actually Susannas murder was done within a couple of blocks from Grandpa Paughs Boulder apartment, which was centrally located. Wonder who was using that apartment one year later, December 1997, hmmm.


.

.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

WolfmarsGirl,

...It seems that if Patsy would have held JonBenet that tight, and for such a long time as to make indentations on JonBenet's skin, there would have been marks in more than just three places -- on the face, on the back, and on the lower leg near the ankle. There would have been a dozen or more marks, especially on the arms and torso, because each time she would shift JonBenet's body while holding her, even if just one inch, another indentation would occur...
JMO

Hiya BC! I have to disagree with you here.

It is precisely the location of the marks that led me to this theory. It is not only the location, but also the angle of the marks that got my attention.

Here, I will describe it to you this way:

Imagine holding a small child with his/her face right next to yours while you are sitting on the floor. You would be holding this child kind of like you would hold a guitar.

Naturally, if you are right-handed, you would cradle your child's head in your right hand. Your fingers would end up wrapped around the child's cheek.

Now, the left hand is the most interesting. Your left hand would clutch your child's lower back. Because of the angle, your index finger would end up slightly higher on her back than your middle finger. Your middle finger would be slightly higher than your index finger, etc.

Depending on the child's height, your hand would land on the child's back at almost exactly the same spot where the back marks occur on JBR. And your fingers would strike at exactly the same angle as the marks.

Add to that the fact that my two round-stoned rings make nearly exactly the same type of indentation we see on JBR's back and a cluster-type ring would make nearly exactly the same mark we see on her face, I think I am right on the money.

No stun gun would produce patterns within the abrasion. There is a distinct pattern on JBR's face, as I have highlighted in my link.

I think if Patsy killed JBR, or thought she was already dead, (or simply found her and thought she was dead), she would grab the child and clutch her in this manner.

If she held her tightly for a while (how much time, I do not know...), my guess is she would not shift her hands. I know that when I cradle my child like this, for various reasons, I normally just hold her and do not move around much (especially if she is sick or sleeping on my lap).

Remember, it took me only about a minute or two (don't remember the exact time...sorry) to produce the marks on my hands...If I died shortly thereafter, would the marks remain on my skin? I am not sure. No one has given me a clear answer to that question yet. However, I assume the answer is 'yes;' the marks would stay.

This may have been Patsy's initial grief-stricken squeeze that produced the marks. She may very well have held her more carefully after that point.

I am talking about the kind of marks you make without even thinking about what you are doing...Like when I am on a rollercoaster and I dig fingernail marks into my husband's arm...I don't even know I am doing it because the mock fear causes me to temporarily lose sight of my own strength.

When I saw the pattern in the mark on JBR's cheek, I became convinced that there is no other explanation.

 

[FULTON]

No one has yet to my knowlwdge been able to say what type of stun gun made those marks,not even Lou Smit who said he has tried them all with only one brand being close but still no match. Hey maybee the perp made their own stun gun from the materials in PR's paint tote as every thing else used in the crime came from the house!!!!!

 

[DocWatson]

Wolfmarsgirl,
But how does your theory account for stun gun marks in THREE DIFFERENT PLACES:
as Bluecrab notes "on the face, on the back, and on the lower leg near the ankle."
If there was only one set of marks, your theory might be plausible, but Patsy would have had to cradle JBR in very contorted ways to replicate these marks in 2 other places besides the back.

 

[WolfmarsGirl]

Wolfmarsgirl,
But how does your theory account for stun gun marks in THREE DIFFERENT PLACES:
as Bluecrab notes "on the face, on the back, and on the lower leg near the ankle."
If there was only one set of marks, your theory might be plausible, but Patsy would have had to cradle JBR in very contorted ways to replicate these marks in 2 other places besides the back.

HiDocWatson.

The marks on her ankle, I believe, are the only marks that I have not accounted for in my theory. I have not seen photos of these particular marks (has anyone?), so I cannot say if they are the same types of marks found in the other two locations.

I do know that JBR had some reddish-looking marks on the lower parts of her legs in some recent photos. Kids get leg-marks all the time.

If they are the same marks as those on her face and back, then perhaps someone grabbed the child by the ankle and pulled her out of wherever she was discovered?.? I am not sure since I have not seen the ankle markings.

My theory accounts for not only one set of marks, but two sets that could be duplicated easily by the types of rings I described.

Go ahead. Try to make the marks on your own hand (like I did).

Then hold a child (or a large stuffed animal) in the same manner I outlined (without the rings or squeezing, please). Where do your fingers end up on the child?

If your child is willing to indulge your need for sleuthing (since mine has lost her patience with my unusual hobby, lol), then put four stamper-rings on your hands (with the 'stones' or stamps facing your palms) and hold your child as I explained.

You will end up with one or two marks on his/her cheek and two on her lower back in the same location as the marks on Jonbenet on the opposite side from where the cheek marks appear.

So, here I have explained (with regard to two out of the three sets of abrasions):

1. A means to duplicate the marks so closely that it is difficult, at best, to tell the difference between my ring-induced marks and the actual abrasions on the body.

2. The 'weapon' is a common household object that we know Patsy, at one point at least, had access to and commonly used.

3. Patsy appears to wear the cluster ring (the ring that matches the abrasion on the cheek) on the hand that would have landed on JBR's face as I described.

4. The location of the marks line up perfectly to the clutching I described.

5. The angle of the two sets of marks line up as well with amazing accuracy.

So, no, there was no contortion here. Patsy just grabbed her child and held her close . A very natural position, actually.

It all matches up a little too completely for it not to be true, at least in my humble opinion.

 

[DocWatson]

HiDocWatson.

The marks on her ankle, I believe, are the only marks that I have not accounted for in my theory. I have not seen photos of these particular marks (has anyone?), so I cannot say if they are the same types of marks found in the other two locations.

.

I must be missing something, as the photos I've seen of the stun gun marks show two very distinct marks spaced identically apart: indeed it is the spacing of the marks that helps narrow down the stun gun to a particular type: the Air Taser. The rings shown on your site would leave multiple marks (as your own example at the site illustrates). In the scenario you envision, I don't think Patsy would be calmly rocking JBR for the extended period needed to make permanent impressions. I concur with Bluecrab that there would have probably been multiple shifts in positions, e.g., a very hard squeeze followed perhaps by holding JBR out and looking at her face "I can't believe you're DEAD!" etc.

Also, maybe it's a guy thing but whenever I cradled my own children of that size, at best I would have replicated the back marks, but my left hand never ends up on their face (and if it did, I certainly wouldn't be SQUEEZING it). Instead, my right hand ends up around the back in the position you describe, but my left hand ends up on wrist or arm (or if they lie over my arm, then back somewhere on the torse: it's hard to imagine ever ending up on the face without being quite contorted).

 

[aRnd2it]

stun gun marks in THREE DIFFERENT PLACES:
as Bluecrab notes "on the face, on the back, and on the lower leg near the ankle."

Yeah, THREE places with marks that don't even come close to matching each other. Including one which is a mark on her face that doesn't have a corresponding mate. I guess there was three different stun guns huh?

 

[BlueCrab]

The marks on her ankle, I believe, are the only marks that I have not accounted for in my theory. I have not seen photos of these particular marks (has anyone?), so I cannot say if they are the same types of marks found in the other two locations.

WolfmarsGirl,

There apparently are no photos of the marks on JonBenet's left leg. Here's how the autopsy report described the leg injuries:

"On the posterior aspect of the left lower leg, almost in the midline, approximately 4 inches above the level of the heel are two small scratch-like abrasions which are dried and rust colored. They measure one-sixteenth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch and one-eighth by less than one-sixteenth of an inch respectively."

The individual twin marks on the leg measure close to the measurements of the individual twin marks on the back, but unfortunately the coroner didn't give the measurements between the marks at either location. However, we know the approximate measurements of the injuries on the back because of the autopsy photos. By scaling the photos, the distance measures about 1 3/8" between the twin rectangular injuries.

The injury on the face is more difficult to describe because only one of the twin injuries shows up clearly. The coroner described it this way:

"Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion." He didn't describe the second mark. However, in the autopsy photo this injury very closely resembles the ugly facial injury to Gerald Boggs, who was murdered and proven to be stungunned at almost the same location on the face. In both cases the second prong of the stun gun (if one was used on JonBenet) did not leave a clearly discernable mark.

In my opinion these are likely stun gun injuries at all three locations on JonBenet.

JMO

 

[aRnd2it]

Lou Smit would be 69 years old now, three years younger than myself. I would hardly consider someone of that age, doing the work that he has done for 30 years delusional.

It was the other detectives working the case who first called Lou Smit "delusional". (Unless you think I'm so famous that I'm worth quoting by Katie Couric who pointed out to Smit that is what he is called....LOL)

Smit received that description for good reason:
First he made up his mind the Ramseys were innocent after only 72-hours on the job--hardly enough time to make a dent in 20,000 pages of case file.

And besides his stun gun delusion, he ran all the other detectives in circles with his constant make-believe evidence--Like the grape juice "blood" on the carpet, the thumb print that wasn't on the pipe, the footprint in the window well that is actually a mark on in the concrete.

Beckner says of Smit, "In order to believe his theories you have to ignore a lot of evidence." I wouldn't exactly call that high praise from an ex-employer...

 

[BlueCrab]

Yeah, THREE places with marks that don't even come close to matching each other. Including one which is a mark on her face that doesn't have a corresponding mate. I guess there was three different stun guns huh?

Rndt2,

No two stun gun injuries look alike. The face, the back, and the lower leg present three entirely different contoured and pliable surfaces. And each stun gun hit will also be different depending on how many seconds the gun is held against the subject, the pressure of the gun against the subject, at what angle the prongs are touching the struggling subject, etc, etc.

JMO